p.13 #1 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
So many comments flying fast....
I’d like to complement the one that suggested this would be a better lens if 2.8 all through the zoom range. It would be lighter, smaller, and leave our wallets at least $500 lighter, too!
The 70-180 f2.8 can be found sometimes for $1,000. THAT is good value for performance.
This lens shoots at f2 for a very short focal range to justify the weight, cost, and even atypical Tamron filter size.
p.13 #2 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
onthebeam wrote:
So many comments flying fast....
I’d like to complement the one that suggested this would be a better lens if 2.8 all through the zoom range. It would be lighter, smaller, and leave our wallets at least $500 lighter, too!
The 70-180 f2.8 can be found sometimes for $1,000. THAT is good value for performance.
This lens shoots at f2 for a very short focal range to justify the weight, cost, and even atypical Tamron filter size.
p.13 #3 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Yeah, it's ridiculous to argue that having f2.0-f2.8 range is worse than having only the narrow end. The only downsides are weight/size/cost increase but that should take 2nd place to results for a pro.
We don't know nearly anything about the optical performance yet so it's also impossible to say how it stacks against the GMs (and we know from 70-180, Tamron can come out of it favorably)...
It's pricey because it's unique thanks to it's "variable aperture" () , simple as that - whether we like it or not...
p.13 #6 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
j4nu wrote:
Yeah, it's ridiculous to argue that having f2.0-f2.8 range is worse than having only the narrow end. The only downsides are weight/size/cost increase but that should take 2nd place to results for a pro.
We don't know nearly anything about the optical performance yet so it's also impossible to say how it stacks against the GMs (and we know from 70-180, Tamron can come out of it favorably)...
It's pricey because it's unique thanks to it's "variable aperture" () , simple as that - whether we like it or not...
Weight, size and cost are the 3 most important things though lol, yes, even to us pros. I don’t know a single photographer who wants to lug heavy gear around on an all day shoot, not a single one. I also don’t know any so rich that price is no option. Unless you are Peter McKinon and make tons of money off your YouTube channel. Also, when did f/2.8 become an aperture professional portrait and wedding photographers wanted? Most thumb their nose at it and want at least f/1.8 and faster.
Not sure why so many think professional photographers are running around spending $2k on lenses like it’s nothing. Most working professionals are budget savvy and many of us aren’t using the latest and greatest. I know plenty of other professional photographers who think this lens is overpriced and would opt for a GM over a Tamron if spending $2k on a lens. You are talking about the 2% of photographers to whom price, size and weight doesn’t matter.
p.13 #7 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Dexter75 wrote:
Im talking about portrait, wedding or event photography, especially outdoors. I shoot with the 28-200, which is a variable aperture zoom. You constantly have to watch your settings as you go thru the focal lengths because they are ever changing. Granted, f/2-2.8 is a smaller range than my f/2.8-5.6 but youre still dealing with f/2, 2.2, 2.5 and 2.8 which is not ideal.
Lets say you are shooting a wedding or event and need to go from 35-40mm out to 135mm or so quickly. That jump from f/2 to f/2.8 is going to require a change to your shutter speed and ISO or the photos will look way off from each other and your client wont be very impressed. How fast do you think you can change your settings before you miss a shot at a wedding?
This is why every professional grade zoom has a constant aperture and variable aperture is for budget zooms. Even going from f/2 to f/2.2 is more than likely going to require you change your settings, especially if you are outdoors where your light may be changing. For the price of this lens, having a variable aperture is a major downfall. ...Show more →
We can agree to disagree. I've shot plenty of weddings. I don't consider what you're describing to be actual problems.
p.13 #8 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Dexter75 wrote:
Weight, size and cost are the 3 most important things though lol, yes, even to us pros. I don’t know a single photographer who wants to lug heavy gear around on an all day shoot, not a single one. I also don’t know any so rich that price is no option. Unless you are Peter McKinon and make tons of money off your YouTube channel. Also, when did f/2.8 become an aperture professional portrait and wedding photographers wanted? Most thumb their nose at it and want at least f/1.8 and faster.
Not sure why so many think professional photographers are running around spending $2k on lenses like it’s nothing. Most working professionals are budget savvy and many of us aren’t using the latest and greatest. I know plenty of other professional photographers who think this lens is overpriced and would opt for a GM over a Tamron if spending $2k on a lens. You are talking about the 2% of photographers to whom price, size and weight doesn’t matter. ...Show more →
For me, it replaces two lenses, 24-105 and 70-200 For football, I won’t have to carry 3 bodies on the field. 400 and 35-150 and be done, maybe an ultra wide in a pouch. But before I have to have 24-105, 70-200 and 400. So this eliminates the need for that and lightens my load dramatically.
For hockey, I no longer have to choose long 70-200 or short 24-105. 150 long end will be just a hair short but with the A1 I have cropping room, and which I’d rather deal with than being too long at 70 for a player skating in my direction for a celebration and trying to switch bodies .
p.13 #9 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Dexter75 wrote:
Weight, size and cost are the 3 most important things though lol, yes, even to us pros. I don’t know a single photographer who wants to lug heavy gear around on an all day shoot, not a single one. I also don’t know any so rich that price is no option. Unless you are Peter McKinon and make tons of money off your YouTube channel. Also, when did f/2.8 become an aperture professional portrait and wedding photographers wanted? Most thumb their nose at it and want at least f/1.8 and faster.
Not sure why so many think professional photographers are running around spending $2k on lenses like it’s nothing. Most working professionals are budget savvy and many of us aren’t using the latest and greatest. I know plenty of other professional photographers who think this lens is overpriced and would opt for a GM over a Tamron if spending $2k on a lens. You are talking about the 2% of photographers to whom price, size and weight doesn’t matter. ...Show more →
GM means nothing if the optical quality is compromised. The 85, 24-70, and 70-200 GMs are all outperformed by third party offerings like the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 and 24-70 f/2.8 DG DN lenses, and the Tamrom 70-180 respectively.
This 35-150 is more expensive than many people would like, but conoaringbitbto the 28-200 has to be limited to the focal range and variable aperture. The build quality and optics are obviously better.
That working photographers (I'm not calling you "pro" bro) use variable aperture lenses doesn't make those lenses professional. I can see how plenty of wedding and event photographers would see the appeal of an all in one zoom, even if it had a variable aperture. But there's a massive difference between being at f/2.8 at 150mm vs. f/5.4. Sure, the 28-200mm goes to 200, but if you can't work around not having the gap that lies between 150 and 200mm, I don't want you shooting shit for me. The additional light and separation that the 35-150 offers is going to be far more appealing for working photographers doing events.
The standard wedding lens setup for people shooting for a living and not just taking low-mid range weddings on the side, is going to be 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8. A 105 (or other) macro lens, and maybe even a 35mm f/1.4 for the couples portraits. 2 camera bodies that both have dual card slots, and hopefully some sort of system to back up cards during the event.
If you're making $4000+ per wedding and not investing in the best kit then whatever, but you would never have caught me shooting a ~$6000 wedding with an $800 super zoom that goes from 2.8 - 5.6.
And you're not using auto ISO because that's not "professional" So you're shooting a 28-200 with a large variable aperture range in manual and just missing a tonne of shots while you change your settings? GTFO. Set the fucking 35-150 to 2.8 then. Leave it there unless you want to shoot at 35-45mm and need more light or separation.
Dex, do you have a website? It'd be interesting to see some examples from your 28-200 and how it compares to the new lens when it comes to sharpness and falloff.
p.13 #10 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
LAARILEY wrote:
Dex, do you have a website? It'd be interesting to see some examples from your 28-200 and how it compares to the new lens when it comes to sharpness and falloff.
p.13 #11 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
turbodude wrote:
For me, it replaces two lenses, 24-105 and 70-200 For football, I won’t have to carry 3 bodies on the field. 400 and 35-150 and be done, maybe an ultra wide in a pouch. But before I have to have 24-105, 70-200 and 400. So this eliminates the need for that and lightens my load dramatically.
For hockey, I no longer have to choose long 70-200 or short 24-105. 150 long end will be just a hair short but with the A1 I have cropping room, and which I’d rather deal with than being too long at 70 for a player skating in my direction for a celebration and trying to switch bodies . ...Show more →
Every lens has a use case, and to me this is a pretty clear one for the 35-150.
p.13 #12 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
LAARILEY wrote:
GM means nothing if the optical quality is compromised. The 85, 24-70, and 70-200 GMs are all outperformed by third party offerings like the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 and 24-70 f/2.8 DG DN lenses, and the Tamrom 70-180 respectively.
This 35-150 is more expensive than many people would like, but conoaringbitbto the 28-200 has to be limited to the focal range and variable aperture. The build quality and optics are obviously better.
That working photographers (I'm not calling you "pro" bro) use variable aperture lenses doesn't make those lenses professional. I can see how plenty of wedding and event photographers would see the appeal of an all in one zoom, even if it had a variable aperture. But there's a massive difference between being at f/2.8 at 150mm vs. f/5.4. Sure, the 28-200mm goes to 200, but if you can't work around not having the gap that lies between 150 and 200mm, I don't want you shooting shit for me. The additional light and separation that the 35-150 offers is going to be far more appealing for working photographers doing events.
The standard wedding lens setup for people shooting for a living and not just taking low-mid range weddings on the side, is going to be 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8. A 105 (or other) macro lens, and maybe even a 35mm f/1.4 for the couples portraits. 2 camera bodies that both have dual card slots, and hopefully some sort of system to back up cards during the event.
If you're making $4000+ per wedding and not investing in the best kit then whatever, but you would never have caught me shooting a ~$6000 wedding with an $800 super zoom that goes from 2.8 - 5.6.
And you're not using auto ISO because that's not "professional" So you're shooting a 28-200 with a large variable aperture range in manual and just missing a tonne of shots while you change your settings? GTFO. Set the fucking 35-150 to 2.8 then. Leave it there unless you want to shoot at 35-45mm and need more light or separation.
Dex, do you have a website? It'd be interesting to see some examples from your 28-200 and how it compares to the new lens when it comes to sharpness and falloff....Show more →
No reason to get rude or personally attack me because I have a differing view. Yes, id rather have the extra reach and most certainly rather have the extra on the wide angle than a faster aperture. This isn't 1995 and these arent DSLRs. Newer mirrorless cameras (especially Sonys) can easily handle higher ISO settings to compensate for a slower aperture. Your 150mm is never going to compensate for 200mm though, unless you plan to crop in a lot, and we all know how that looks. Your 35mm is never going to compensate for a 28mm for group shots in limited space either.
Even in regards to the separation you mention, again, that can be compensated for in post. There are several really good apps and programs like Luminar AI that offer very good bokeh control. I took shots from my 70-180 shot at f/2.8 and matched them to shots from my various 85mm f/1.4 lenses and I can almost guarantee you couldn't tell which was shot with the 2.8 lens. Same goes with shots at f/5.4 and f/2.8, easy to match them up. However, I shoot mostly fashion and swimsuit and most that is done stopped down anyways, nothing close to f/2 or even f/2.8
My photos are too NSFW to post in a thread like this. Ive worked with Playboy, Maxim, Muscle and Fitness etc...so not really photos appropriate for general threads. Weddings are just a side gig. Rest assured that I will rent the 35-150 when its out and will shoot it alongside my 28-200 and post photos in a thread here where it fits.
p.13 #13 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I ordered this lens the moment it was available for pre-order. I'm going to Uganda in January and part of the trip will be a Mountain Gorilla trek. I think this lens will be ideal. Wide enough for when the gorillas get close, and enough reach for when they are more distant. Paired with the A1, this should allow plenty of cropping if necessary. It should also let in enough light in the dark forest to keep ISO values reasonable. Would love to hear from others who have been to Uganda, but I think this is going to be perfect for the occasion.
Its massive and heavy. RF L size and weight but at least the Canon cameras are big and with nice grips to support big heavy lenses. Sony cameras are the exact opposite. Its going to be massively front heavy and balance terribly. The idea of lugging that around all day? No thanks. The more I see of this lens, the less interest I have. No wonder they haven't sent any out to legit reviewers yet.
p.13 #17 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
zeitlos wrote:
Another AF (etc.?) test.
That's a actually a great video, especially that couple of shots at different apertures & focal lengths.
I liked 35mm f2 the least (still nice for a zoom though), but that might be the distance at play...
p.13 #18 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
zeitlos wrote:
Another AF (etc.?) test.
Thanks. Doesn't look any better than the 28-75 or the 70-180, but its priced significantly more expensive than either one. I guess you could argue it combines the best of both but I expect a better image quality and much better bokeh quality than that for a $2k lens. They really should have just made this a constant f/2.8 and made it smaller, lighter and priced it around $1499.
p.13 #19 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
It does look better than 28-75, which is sharp but rather unattractive in its background rendering. I'm not gonna argue over a youtube video with a couple of embedded pictures though ...
Besides, you can always fix that in post .
p.13 #20 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
j4nu wrote:
It does look better than 28-75, which is sharp but rather unattractive in its background rendering. I'm not gonna argue over a youtube video with a couple of embedded pictures though ...
Besides, you can always fix that in post .
You can fix the amount of bokeh in post, not the quality of it. Huge difference. This is just your typical zoom bokeh quality. Again, I expect a much higher quality for a $2k lens. Certainly wont be replacing any faster aperture primes that render much better.
) , simple as that - whether we like it or not...
So you're shooting a 28-200 with a large variable aperture range in manual and just missing a tonne of shots while you change your settings? GTFO. Set the fucking 35-150 to 2.8 then. Leave it there unless you want to shoot at 35-45mm and need more light or separation. 
...